Sri Sumanta Kumar Mondal

28, Madhab Ghosh Lane,

P.O. Khurut, P.S. Shibpur,

Dist. Howrah.                  -----------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

Versus  

1) The Prop. Ms/ Tarama Electronics

    Dharsa Govt. Colony,

    Near-2657 Telephone Exchange

    P.S. Jagacha, Dist. Howrah.

2) The Prop. Sahana Enterprise, Autho. Service Center,

    68, Narasingha Dutta Road, Howrah-1.

3) The General Manager,

    LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

   1, Ho Chi Min Sarani, Metro Tower, Kol.-71.

4) The General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

    Plot-51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur Kasna Road,

    Greater Noida, PIN-201 306, U.P.                    --------------------OPPOSITE PARTY(S).

P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President            :-             Shri T. K. Bhattacharya, MA, LLB, WBJHS.

Member              :-             Sri P. K. Chatterjee

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Sri Sumata Kumar Mondal against the O.Ps. M/s Tara Ma Electronics and Others praying for replacement of the newly purchased LG refrigerator or to refund the purchase money of Rs. 18,500/- and for Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and pain and for another Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and cost for litigation.

Since after purchase of the LG refrigerator on 12/12/2010 from the showroom of the O.P.-1 on payment of Rs.18,500/-, the same being model No.- GL 278 VE 5B SBZEBN cropped up trouble resulting extreme freezing of the articles placed inside. Even the cooked items and vegetables turned to solid ice within minutes. On repeated requests the O.Ps. caused inspection and rectified the thermostat switch on 04/06/2011. But the same LG refrigerator is inherently defective and beyond rectification as it is not free from the same trouble. Hence, the complaint.

The O.P.-3 the General Manager, LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. filing W.V. denied the material allegations but admitted the purchase of the refrigerator and that the O.P.-3 had no knowledge about any complaint by the complainant.

Upon the pleadings of both parties, two points arose for determination.

Points for decision

Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?

Whether the complainant the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

Both the points are taken up together for consideration.

On the scrutiny of the enclosures it is clear that the complainant left no stone unturned for getting the newly purchased refrigerator operative. After several requests the O.P.-1 inspected the same and replaced the thermostat switch. Within couple days the refrigerator developed identical defects. We are sure that the refrigerator has inherent mechanical defects, which is beyond repair. In the midst of argument Ld. Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.-3 candidly admitted the congenital defect and assured replacement of the same. But as the complainant had to suffer mental agony and pain for loitering from pillar to post, the complainant is entitled to a litigation cost. We are not awarding any amount for damage and compensation as prayed for.,

Accordingly, both the points are disposed of. The complaint therefore succeeds.

Hence,

                                                                                  Ordered

                                 that the complaint case No.-69/2011  be allowed on contest with costs of Rs.5,000/- against O.P-3 and dismissed without cost against the rest.

The O.P.-3 be directed to replace the existing LG refrigerator being model No. GL 278 VE 5B SBZEBN and to pay the litigatin cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order, failing, the complainant shall be at liberty to put the case in execution.

Let the copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.